Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 22nd Apr 2007 22:47 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 233106
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Linux task schedulers
by hobgoblin on Mon 23rd Apr 2007 16:49
in reply to "RE[2]: Linux task schedulers"
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-06
This reply is lame.
Scientists are getting better at collaboration, resulting in less error from consensus.
This paper proves one thing: Science can't be trusted for producing truth. Ask the ~100million people who were exterminated last century by people and governments who used "science" as their rationale.
I wouldn't call this OS stuff "science" in the same way, writing software algorithms is more akin to engineering, since computers are problem domain artificially limited by the capabilities of the hardware.
That said, there's nothing wrong with going back and refactoring something occasionally to see if there's a better way to do it.
I'd say at least half the code I write gets tossed on the trash heap. Sometimes because of an initial misunderstanding of the problem, definitely because writing the code is a part of learning the problem.